Page 1
Court of Appeal:
City Tax on Vacant Lots Doesn’t Violate State Constitution
Justices Reject Contention by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association That Measure Contravenes Proposition 218
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district declared yesterday that the City of Long Beach, in imposing an annual $780 fee on owners of vacant lots to defray costs of monitoring those parcels in an effort to abate blight and criminal activity, is not violating a voter-enacted state constitutional provision.
Acting Presiding Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst of Div. Two authored the unpublished opinion, which affirms a summary judgment in favor of the city granted by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch. The judge rejected the contention by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and vacant-lot owner Frederic R. Sparrevohn that the fee violates Proposition 218—“The Right to Vote on Taxes Initiative,” approved by the electorate in November 1996—which restricts revenue-raising abilities of local governments.
At issue is whether the Long Beach ordinance, enacted by the City Council on Oct. 10, 2017, is violative of Art. XIII D, §63(a) of the state Constitution. That section provides that “[n]o tax, assessment, fee, or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership,” with stated exceptions including an ad valorem property tax.
Section Is Inapplicable
That section doesn’t apply, Ashmann-Gerst said, because the fee is not imposed “as an incident of property ownership.”
She explained:
“[F]or the fee to apply, more is required than normal ownership and use of the property….The City does not impose the fee simply because someone owns a parcel of property and uses it. Rather, more is required—it is imposed as an incident of the voluntary and unusual act of the property owner not using his property.”
Property Owners’ Prerogative
The jurist went on to say: “Nor does the fee somehow compel property owners to develop their properties. The vacant lot monitoring fee simply funds a regulatory program that addresses the adverse impacts that vacant properties have on the community. A property owner such as Sparrevohn is free to keep his property vacant; he just has to pay the fee associated with his decision.
“Our conclusion will not open the door to local governments imposing a limitless number of fees triggered by any choice of a property owner. The vacant lot monitoring fee is not an arbitrary fee. Rather, at the risk of sounding redundant, it is triggered by a property owner’s choice to keep a property vacant, which negatively impacts the surrounding community. Under these circumstances, and based upon the arguments raised by the parties, the fee is valid.”
The case is Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Long Beach, B331453.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company